Can you cite a criminal prosecution under these circumstances—a scammer converts client funds and donates them to an unknowing charity, which does not return them on its own initiative? I can think of a counterexample—Minnesota retroactively changed its fraudulent conveyance law to protect certain charities who had received donations from Ponzi scammer Tom Peters. That wouldn’t have accomplished anything of note if retention of those funds was a crime. Somewhat similar discussion here with the American Cancer Society successfully defending a clawback in a Ponzi-like case. Do you think their lawyers just missed that these charities were holding on to stolen funds, and the federal courts that decided those cases couldn’t be bothered to mention that in passing?
There has also been zero discussion of potential criminal consequences in any statement I’ve read by a lawyer in the press about this matter. Notably, if the USA for SDNY viewed the situation the way you do, he would have presumably done more than “ask that you work with us . . . ” And the world’s most powerful person with a law degree has been mum so far on whether he will return $5.2MM in contributions from SBF.
Can you cite a criminal prosecution under these circumstances—a scammer converts client funds and donates them to an unknowing charity, which does not return them on its own initiative? I can think of a counterexample—Minnesota retroactively changed its fraudulent conveyance law to protect certain charities who had received donations from Ponzi scammer Tom Peters. That wouldn’t have accomplished anything of note if retention of those funds was a crime. Somewhat similar discussion here with the American Cancer Society successfully defending a clawback in a Ponzi-like case. Do you think their lawyers just missed that these charities were holding on to stolen funds, and the federal courts that decided those cases couldn’t be bothered to mention that in passing?
There has also been zero discussion of potential criminal consequences in any statement I’ve read by a lawyer in the press about this matter. Notably, if the USA for SDNY viewed the situation the way you do, he would have presumably done more than “ask that you work with us . . . ” And the world’s most powerful person with a law degree has been mum so far on whether he will return $5.2MM in contributions from SBF.